Agenda item
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF HEREFORDSHIRE
- Meeting of Extraordinary Meeting, Council, Friday 4 January 2013 10.30 am (Item 71.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 71.
To consider and approve a submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, in respect of its proposals for Council size and warding arrangements in Herefordshire.
Minutes:
The Leader of the Council presented a report on the proposed submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission of England in respect of the Commission’s proposals for Council size and warding arrangements in Herefordshire. The Leader informed Council that the Commission was unlikely to make any significant changes at this late stage and any proposed changes would need to be well argued and well presented with evidence. The Leader commended the report to Council and the recommendations therein.
The following points were made in discussion:-
· That there was a feeling a reduction to 53 members would put greater strain on members populating existing Council Committees. In many cases Councillors commit 40-60 hours per week on Council work and this would also add to the overall carbon footprint.
· The reduction in Member numbers would adversely affect the access to skills and experience that members bring to meetings.
· At least one of the 3 guiding principles of the Boundary Commission seems to be breached in that there are examples of Multi Agency wards working very strongly in particular:-
i) Tupsley and the work of the Tupsley Community Group and N. Tupsley Action Group
ii) Leominster and the work of the ‘Bridge Street Buddies’
· Many of the Communities were being cut in half by the proposals on boundary lines inappropriately drawn up based on landscape features or numbers rather than community make-up.
· The Commission seemed determined to pursue the idea of single member wards with no consideration to alternative views.
· Councillor WLS Bowen, in respect of recommendation (c) stated that the current proposition was not a practical one with too much focus on the South of the ward. Councillor Bowen stated that the barrier between Hanway Common and Mortimer Forest was significant and the ward was not drawn up in a practical way for Richards Castle to receive a proper service from a Councillor at Mortimer, for example.
· Ledbury Ward preferred to remain as a single ward with three Councillors. The responses received from Ledbury Town Councillors were unanimous in opposition, as were the opinions of the Ward Members. The responses received from Ledbury represented 30% of the written responses received by the Council.
· Councillor GA Powell made the point that the proposals in respect of Hunderton and Hinton were unsatisfactory and Hunderton and Newton Farm should be linked as one ward.
· The consultation period was abnormally short, without explanation from the Commission, and rendered even shorter by the Christmas holidays. Around 40% of the responses were submitted on the last day (28 August 2012) and every single one quotes the same words, including the character marks, a paragraph of text must therefore have been sent out for people to use in responses, every single one of whom was associated with the Conservative party.
· For some wards it was appropriate to leave them as they were and the “ Do Nothing” option should also be considered.
· The Council had already made its substantive submissions in its letter to the Commission in the summer of 2012 and effectively therefore there were no alternatives on the table to consider and these issues were not up for debate.
· The proposals could be considered as a more efficient use of the time of both officers and members once implemented.
The recommendation at (a) in the report was moved and seconded whereupon a vote was taken as follows:-
For: 30
Against: 16
Abstentions: 2
Councillor FM Norman proposed a motion that ‘this Council agrees that greater flexibility is needed and multi-member arrangements should be possible where called for” which was seconded, whereupon a vote was taken as follows:-
For: 23
Against: 24 (The Chairman having used her vote)
Abstentions: 2
The recommendation at (b) in the report was proposed and seconded and carried UNANIMOUSLY.
A named vote was requested in accordance with paragraph 4.1.16.38 in respect of motion (c). The motion being proposed and seconded the vote was taken as follows:-
For: 24 votes
Councillors: PA Andrews, AM Atkinson, LO Barnett, CM Bartrum, AJM Blackshaw, H Bramer, ACR Chappell, MJK Cooper, PGH Cutter, BA Durkin, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, JW Hope MBE, JA Hyde, TM James, JG Jarvis, JF Knipe, PM Morgan, NP Nenadich, RJ Phillips, GJ Powell, PD Price, P Sinclair-Knipe, DB Wilcox
Against: 23 votes
Councillors: CNH Attwood, PL Bettington, WLS Bowen, AM Bridges, J Hardwick, EPJ Harvey, AJ Hempton-Smith, Brig. P Jones CBE, JLV Kenyon, MD Lloyd-Hayes, RI Matthews, PJ McCaull, SM Michael, C Nicholls, FM Norman, GA Powell, AJW Powers, R Preece, SJ Robertson, A Seldon, J Stone, GR Swinford, PJ Watts
Abstentions: 1
Councillor: PJ Edwards
In respect of Motion (d) after agreeing that each name change be passed, subject to proposal and seconding, changes to ward names would be sent to the Boundary Commission for their consideration
RESOLVED
That the Council:
(a) accepts the Boundary Commission proposal for a council size of 53 members.
(b) supports the submission of Richards Castle Parish Council that the parish should be included in the proposed Kingsland Ward rather than Mortimer Ward
(c) accepts the recommended warding arrangements for the county
(d) approves the list of ward names as set out in appendix A of the report, subject to the changes as follows:-
No 8 Bromyard Downs to Bromyard East
No 28 Kingsland to Bircher
No 10 Broomy Hill to Greyfriars
No 19 Eign Hill to Central Tupsley
No 29 Kingstone to Wormside
No 1 Ashperton to Trumpet, Newton and Burley Gate
No 5 Bishops Frome to Bisphops Frome and Cradley
No 4 Bircher to Golden Valley East
Supporting documents:
- [1]Electoral Review of Herefordshire - with ERPT ERWG JJ & DT - FINALISED, item 71. PDF 97 KB
- [2]Ward Boundary Review - App A - response to LGBC names - ERWG ERPT JJ addit CD - FINALISED, item 71. PDF 108 KB